Receivable Recovery Services v. Coates

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL
VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Receivable Recovery Services,
Appellant,

v.

Dona Sloan Coates,Respondent.

Appeal From Lexington
County

 Rodney A. Peeples, Circuit
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion
No. 2004-UP-350

Submitted March 19, 2004 –
Filed May 25, 2004

AFFIRMED

Charles F. Thompson, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Everett Hope Garner, of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Receivable
Recovery Services (Receivable) appeals the circuit court and magistrate court’s
order asserting the courts erred with regards to monies paid to Dona Sloan Coates
(Coates) while Coates was working as a sales representative for Receivable. 

FACTS

Receivable hired Coates to work as
a sales representative.  Receivable is in the business of collecting accounts
receivables for other businesses.  Coates was hired at an initial base salary
of $28,000.  During initial discussions with Richard Friend, the hiring supervisor
at Receivable, regarding benefits Coates made a decision to waive hospitalization
and medical benefits.  Friend told her that the waiver of benefits would
result in a $200.00 automatic increase of her monthly salary. Friend also assured
Coates he would “go to bat for her” to get more money. 

From the beginning of her employment,
Coates was being paid $500 more monthly than the initial base salary.  Friend’s
assurances caused Coates to believe the company intended to pay her the additional
$500 monthly.  For six months Coates received the alleged $500 overpayment. 
However, after four months of employment, Coates discussed the additional salary
with Friend and thanked him for the increase.  During this discussion, Friend
did not mention that the additional salary was an overpayment.  After Coates
had worked at Receivable for six months and had received eleven checks, Coates
spoke with Joe Messina, the owner of the corporation.  Shortly after
the conversation with Messina, Coates terminated her employment with Receivable.

Messina made attempts to have Coates
sign an agreement that said she was overpaid $500.
[1] Additionally, Receivable deducted $754.67 from Coates’ payroll and
$ 231.58 from Coates’ expenses, without her permission.

The magistrate found the testimony
that the alleged overpayment resulted from ADP’s keying error unbelievable. 
The magistrate found that although Coates had been getting more money and was
aware of that, Receivable failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that there was an overpayment.  Receivable appealed to the circuit court, which
found there was evidence in the record to affirm the magistrate’s ruling.  The
circuit court affirmed the magistrate.  This appeal follows.     
 

ISSUES

1. 
Did
the circuit court err in holding that Coates was entitled to keep money
mistakenly paid to her by Receivable when relevant case law clearly states
a party may recover money mistakenly paid even if it was wholly responsible
for the error?

2. 
Did
the magistrate err in holding Coates was entitled to keep money mistakenly
paid to her by Receivable based on the judge’s speculation that Receivable
meant to pay Coates?

LAW/ANALYSIS

Because this case originated in
magistrate’s court, South Carolina Code Ann. § 18-7-170 (1985) is applicable. 
Parks v. Characters Night Club, 345 S.C. 484, 490, 548 S.E.2d 605, 608
(Ct. App. 2001).  On appeal from magistrate’s court, the circuit court may make
its own findings of fact. See S.C. Code Ann. § 18-7-170.  However, on
appeal from a circuit court’s affirmance of a magistrate’s order, the appellate
court’s review is more limited. This court will presume that an affirmance by
a circuit court of a magistrate's judgment was made upon the merits where the
testimony is sufficient to sustain the magistrate’s judgment and there are no
facts that show the affirmance was influenced by an error of law.  Hadfield
v. Gilchrist, 343 S.C. 88, 538 S.E.2d 268 (Ct. App. 2000). We therefore
look to whether the circuit court order is controlled by an error of law or
is unsupported by the facts. Parks, Id.

Receivable argues that Coates in
not permitted to keep monies mistakenly paid to her.  We do not believe the
circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide that issue.   Pursuant
to S.C. Code Ann. § 18-7-20, Receivable, within thirty days after judgment was
announced at the trial, was to serve a notice of appeal, stating the grounds
upon which its appeal was founded.  Receivable did not delineate any grounds
or exceptions on its appeal to the circuit court. Accordingly, Receivable’s
issues were not preserved for appellate review.

Even if we believed the issue was
preserved for appellate review, we find there is sufficient evidence to support
the lower court’s decision.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, the decision
of the circuit court is

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD and BEATTY, JJ.,
concur.

[1] Receivable hired an outside company, Automatic Data Processing (ADP),
to handle payroll.  ADP was allegedly responsible for keying in the wrong
amount for Coates.  Coates had no dealings with ADP. Receivable did not bring
an action against ADP.